Pages

Monday, July 27, 2015

Superintelligence:
Paths, Dangers, Strategies by is a thought-provoking book. The
author is a philosopher who has a strong technical background in information technology
and science. This work is devoted to the future development of machine
intelligence and the potential dangers relating to its development.

First,
since this book goes into territory that might initially seem far-fetched, and
because “doomsday is coming” type books often lack credibility, I think it is
important to discuss some reasons why I believe that Bostrom’s ideas hold some authority.
This book is extremely well researched and the author has a strong technical grasp
of the relevant subjects. He does not make unsupported contentions. Though a
philosopher, Bostrom seems to have a scientific mind. He often speaks in terms
of probabilities, not predictions or certainties. He does do a lot of
speculation here, but he is careful to point out when it is speculation.

Furthermore,
I have done a little research around this book. This work, as well as some
other books and essays that have been published in the past several years, has
garnered serious attention from a host of scientific, technical and industry
experts. Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are some of the more famous and prominent
people who are looking at these issues as credible. In the past several years,
these concerns have sparked a conversation among those in the know as it relates
to this topic. Some are planning for what may be momentous events related to
the possible coming of super intelligence.

Parts
of this book are technical, and some of it was bit difficult for me to follow.
It helped that I have a passing interest in this topic and in related issues
and that I have occasionally read articles on the subject. In addition, the
author references various writings and ideas relating to human consciousness
and brain function. I have also done a little reading on those subjects, which proved
helpful. Nevertheless, a patient lay reader without much background will mostly
understand and get a lot out of this book.

In
order to comprehend what this work is about, it is important that one
understands several important concepts that Bostrom explores. First, this book
is mostly concerned with what Bostrom calls general or strong artificial intelligence,
or in layman’s terms, computers that will be able to think like humans in
multiple ways. This is as opposed to systems that are currently labeled as artificial
intelligence that are very good at accomplishing specific tasks, but only
specific tasks.This type of less
sophisticated technology is already in use in all sorts of applications,
including Internet search engines, navigational aides, medical application,
etc.

General
artificial intelligence, by definition, will initially be roughly on par with,
or slightly superior to, human intelligence. As Bostrom points out, most of the
film and book depictions of machine intelligences fall into this category.

Artificial
intelligence is not synonymous with “Suprintelligence.”
Though Bostrom spends many pages explaining what he means by Suprintelligence
and offers several definitions, it is basically intelligence that is far
advanced of human thinking in every important area.

The
author writes,

“The magnitudes of the advantages are such
as to suggest that rather than thinking of a superintelligent AI as smart in
the sense that a scientific genius is smart compared with the average human
being, it might be closer to the mark to think of such an AI as smart in the
sense that an average human being is smart compared with a beetle or a worm. “

Bostrom’s
contentions are as follows: sometime in the next fifteen to ninety years,
researchers will likely produce strong artificial intelligence. There will be constant
improvement of this artificial intelligence, either through the efforts of its programmers
or, more likely, it will be a self-improving system. This improvement will eventually
create what Bostrom describes as an “intelligence explosion.” This will be a leap
in intelligence of unimaginable magnitude. Suprintelligence will result.

This
Suprintelligence will have an overwhelming advantage over the whole of human
civilization. Bostrom explains how it might gain easy access to enormous financial
resources and manufacturing faculties. Such an entity might be powerful beyond
human comprehension. It will likely be driven to expand its intelligence further
and further. Such expansion efforts could possibly bring about human
extinction. If the results do not end up as dire as the end of humanity, Suprintelligence
will at least have an enormous impact on the future of our species and
civilization.

Bostrom
speculates about many scenarios. Many of the most likely involve a
Suprintelligence with seemingly godlike powers. In some of these scenarios, in
its drive to become smarter and bigger, the Suprintelligence might begin changing
the ecosystem of the Earth as to make human life impossible. Of one of these
horrifying possibilities Bostrom writes,

“if the AI is sure of its invincibility to
human interference, our species may not be targeted directly. Our demise may
instead result from the habitat destruction that ensues when the AI begins
massive global construction projects using nanotech factories and assemblers—
construction projects which quickly, perhaps within days or weeks, tile all of
the Earth’s surface with solar panels, nuclear reactors, supercomputing
facilities with protruding cooling towers, space rocket launchers, or other
installations whereby the AI intends to maximize the long-term cumulative
realization of its values. Human brains, if they contain information relevant
to the AI’s goals, could be disassembled and scanned, and the extracted data
transferred to some more efficient and secure storage format. “

Though
the above seems fantastic, the author bases his speculations upon what are some
educated guesses of modern scientific and technical minds as to what
technologies are likely to be developed in the future.

Bostrom
discusses many possibilities. Some involve human extinction. However, there is an
entire range of eventualities are explored. Some involve less maleficent ills,
such as a Suprintelligence dominating humanity in more benign but still
stiffening ways. Other scenarios are bright, with a passive Suprintelligence
helping humanity to avoid extinction and promoting human improvement.

But
the author warns,

“Before the prospect of an intelligence
explosion, we humans are like small children playing with a bomb.”

The
author digs into a lot of detail involving the current state of artificial intelligence,
its technical evolution, the revolution that is likely to occur after strong
artificial intelligence is developed, as well as post Suprintelligence scenarios.

Bostrom
does devote a lot of thought to solutions. He concedes that the development of Suprintelligence
is likely inevitable. However, he explores numerous possibilities as to how it
can be developed in order to avoid pernicious outcomes. The author digs deep
into both technological as well as philosophical issues as they relate to
creating favorable outcomes.

There
is a lot more to this book than my summary does justice. Bostrom has a keen
mind and takes the reader down all sorts of interesting scientific,
technological and philosophic paths.

I
think that it is important to remember that those who have attempted to forecast
the future, even those who are knowledgeable, have often been proven wrong. However,
based upon the serious and hardheaded way that this topic is explored, and
based upon the fact that these concerns are being given serious consideration
by bright people who understand these subjects, these ideas need to be
carefully considered. There is much to ponder here.

I
found both the hard technology as well as the predictive and philosophical musings
contained within these pages fascinating. At the very least it is an excellent
primer on the state of artificial intelligence research and its future
development. I strongly recommend this book for anyone interested in this type
of technology, the future of humanity, or the state of the world in general.

Nick Bostrom’s website is full of
interesting thoughts on the ethics, science, philosophy, the future of humanity
and all sorts of other topics. It is here.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Those looking to obtain this novel should
note: the story was turned into a play that was also written by Atwood. The
play version, which I have not read but seems to be somewhat different from the
novel, is also available and has the same title as the novel. The two books are
difficult to distinguish.

The Penelopiad is Margaret
Atwood’s retelling of parts of Homer‘s The Odyssey. Itcenters upon the experiences of Odysseus’s wife, Penelope, and of Penelope’s twelve maids. It is told in the
first person, alternating between Penelope and the maids. These folks now exist
in Hades. They have been there for centuries, and it is now present day. Much
of the story is told in flashback.

In the original epic poem, Penelope stayed faithful
to Odysseus during his twenty years absence
during the Trojan War and his long voyage home. This was despite the fact that
she was besieged by scores of aggressive suitors who were vying for her hand in
marriage.

When Odysseus returned,
he killed the suitors. He also discovered that twelve of Penelope’s maids had fraternized and slept with various
suitors. He ordered these maids to be hung.

The work mostly consists of a first person narrative
from Penelope’s point of view. Portions are also told from the maids’ point of
view.

In this work, Penelope’s story is told with a very
different perspective as that of the original epic. She is required to enter
into an arranged marriage with Odysseus at the
age of 15. In a world where most men are brutal and sadistic to women,
including their own wives,Odysseus seems to be relatively
sensitive and refrains from cruelty. Though later we find that he is deeply
flawed and can be insensitive and manipulative, this aspect of his personality nevertheless
adds complexity and nuance to his character. Penelope develops both a love and a loyalty to him.

When he departs to fight the Trojan War, Penelope is
left alone in Ithaca to fend for herself in a city full of political and family
machinations. She grows into a smart and competent ruler. As Odysseus’s absence stretches past fifteen years, many
assume him dead. The suitors begin to arrive, and Penelope does not have the military or political
means to dismiss them.

As in the original epic, when Odysseus finally
returns, he kills the suitors. He also orders the execution of Penelope’s
twelve maids for fraternizing with them. These murders are perpetuated despite
the fact that some of these young women have been raped by the suitors.

Despite its serious plot and themes, this work is
funny and very creative. It is mostly prose, but the chorus of maids speaks in
verse. Even Penelope’s view is written in a prose style that is almost poetic.

Atwood fits so many things into this short book.
Among the many fascinating aspects to this work are: an exploration of different
perspectives and their influences on storytelling, history and culture; an examination
of the role and plight of women throughout history; an assessment of certain
aspects of feminist literary criticism with a healthy dose of parody thrown in;
and ruminations on applying modern morality and ethics to ancient texts. These somewhat
serious subjects are explored with humor and intelligence.

Penelope is a complex character. She is strong and intelligent.
Yet, we find that she is deeply flawed and is an unreliable narrator. In some
ways it turns out that she rivals Odysseus in cunning and in the ability to
shape the narrative of one’s actions and life into a fabrication. We slowly learn
that despite the narrative that she spins for herself, she did sleep with many
of suitors. Worse yet, it becomes apparent that she may have been complicit in
the murder of the maids.

Odysseus is also not so simple. Despite his earlier
sensitivity, it turns out that his ten-year voyage home was not what he claims that
it was. His adventures were more about bar brawls as opposed to fighting
Cyclopes and long stays in whorehouses as opposed to being entrapped by alluring
goddesses. Of course, he is also primarily responsible for the killing of the
maids.

Thus, the interactions between Penelope and Odysseus
are similarly complex. At one point she describes the following scene that
occurred after his return Penelope comments,

"Then he told me how much he’d missed me, and how he’d been filled with
longing for me even when enfolded in the white arms of goddesses; and I told
him how very many tears I’d shed while waiting twenty years for his return, and
how tediously faithful I’d been, and how I would never have even so much as
thought of betraying his gigantic bed with its wondrous bedpost by sleeping in
it with any other man. The two of us were— by our own admission— proficient and
shameless liars of long standing. It’s a wonder either one of us believed a
word the other said. But we did.

Or so we told each other. "

A good part of the narrative is dedicated to the
plight of the maids. This encompasses an exploration of how the dispossessed
and disenfranchised, as well as women in general, are often given short shrift
in history, literature and culture as well as in real life.

At one point, in an absurd but hilarious scene set in
Hades, Odysseus is on trial for the murders. The ghosts of the maids invoke the
help of the mythological furies in their demand for justice,

“Oh
Angry Ones, Oh Furies, you are our last hope! We implore you to inflict
punishment and exact vengeance on our behalf! Be our defenders, we who had none
in life! Smell out Odysseus wherever he goes! From one place to another, from
one life to another, whatever disguise he puts on, whatever shape he may take,
hunt him down! Dog his footsteps, on earth or in Hades, wherever he may take
refuge, in songs and in plays, in tomes and in theses, in marginal notes and in
appendices! Appear to him in our forms, our ruined forms, the forms of our
pitiable corpses! Let him never be at rest! “

The above references to theses,
margin notes and appendices are, for me, a hilarious but insightful call for what
seems to be cultural and literary justice.

This is an extraordinary book. It
is full of interesting insights and wit. It contains several intriguing themes
of which I have only touched upon above. The characters are complex. The
writing styles are varied and very well crafted. However, it is best enjoyed by
readers who are already familiar with the The Odyssey, as
it is structurally dependent upon the original work in terms of plot, character
and themes. Ultimately this is an outstanding modern perspective on the
original epic.

Friday, July 10, 2015

I have read Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield for the
first time. I am sorry that I waited so long. This novel, despite its flaws, is
enjoyable, meaningful, artistic is one of the most famous books ever written
and has had a great cultural impact.

This is a chronicle of the fictional David Copperfield’s life. It follows
him from his earliest infancy through adulthood. It is the story of self-awakening,
education, abuse, emotional turmoil, friendship, love and a lot more.

Born after the death of his father, David is left with a mother
who loves him, but is terribly weak and who allows her new husband Edward Murdstoneand and Murdstone’s sister Jane,
to abuse him. Eventually his mother also dies, and David endures years of
physical and emotional abuse and neglect until he escapes to the safety and
protection of his eccentric, but benevolent aunt, Betsey Trotwood. Though the years David
encounters various interesting and colorful characters ranging from the saintly
to the downright evil. He experiences love, difficulty in love, as well as
tragedy and death. At the heart of this book is the central love story focusing
upon the decades long relationship between David and his childhood friend,
Agnes Wickfield.

So much can be said about this work, and volumes have been written
about it. As I often do, I will focus upon just one small part of this story.

Dickens is sometimes criticized as being one dimensional and
superficial. In the past I have had similar impressions. Though I see more to
his writing, I also believe that these views are not completely unfounded. Though
his characters are marvelously fun and amusing, some can be described as simplistic
caricatures.

With Dickens however, there is more then meets the eye. In the
psychology of his characters, his plot, his themes, and his prose, there seems to
be underlying manifestations of complicated things. I want to devote a few
words to what seems to be something sinister integrated into Dickens’s reality.

There is something dark lurking behind many
corners of the Universe built by Dickens in this work. Of course the book is filled with pernicious characters who do all sorts of
terrible things. As a result good people suffer. But it gets a little more complex.
It seems that Dickens might be saying that such evil is built into reality. I
think that this is exemplified by certain descriptive passages.

Take the below description of a very run down London
neighborhood,

“The neighbourhood was a dreary
one at that time; as oppressive, sad, and solitary by night, as any about
London. There were neither wharves nor houses on the melancholy waste of road near
the great blank Prison. A sluggish ditch deposited its mud at the prison walls.
Coarse grass and rank weeds straggled over all the marshy land in the vicinity.
In one part, carcases of houses, inauspiciously begun and never finished,
rotted away. In another, the ground was cumbered with rusty iron monsters of
steam-boilers, wheels, cranks, pipes, furnaces, paddles, anchors, diving-bells,
windmill-sails, and I know not what strange objects, accumulated by some
speculator, and grovelling in the dust, underneath which— having sunk into the
soil of their own weight in wet weather— they had the appearance of vainly
trying to hide themselves. The clash and glare of sundry fiery Works upon the
river-side, arose by night to disturb everything except the heavy and unbroken
smoke that poured out of their chimneys. Slimy gaps and causeways, winding
among old wooden piles, with a sickly substance clinging to the latter, like
green hair, and the rags of last year's handbills offering rewards for drowned
men fluttering above high-water mark, led down through the ooze and slush to
the ebb-tide. There was a story that one of the pits dug for the dead in the
time of the Great Plague was hereabout;”

The first thing that strikes me about the above passage is its
rhetorical power. Dickens was a great describer of people and things. His greatness
was not in realism; instead he was at his best when describing highly exaggerated,
almost dreamlike depictions of reality. These descriptions ranged from joyful,
to sad. But when these depictions were dark, as they are in the above passage,
they resemble nightmares.

Here we have prose that exudes death and despair. Dickens presents
us with a human made wasteland scattered with the monsters of
industrialization. This is an amazing representation of Industrial Revolution
nihilism. I think it is important, that the one vestige of human connection,
houses, were never completed and are now abandoned. Even the printed material
concerns itself with death. The slime and growth being compared to green hair
is a horrifying touch.

As there is in reality there some mystery to evil, some horrors
are apparent and some are not, as some of the objects have partially sunk into
the ground, obscuring their nature.

Is the allusion to the prison symbolic of how life can be a prison
for some people? Certainly many of Dickens’s characters find themselves trapped
in terrible situations.

The rumor of a mass grave originating from the plague years only
adds to the gloominess and the reminder of the inevitability of death.

The above is clearly a critique of industrialization that is
worthy commentary in its own right. But
I think that this and similar scenes in this novel are trying to illustrate
something dark that is woven into the Universe.

There are other hints regarding this darkness. For instance, Mr.
Dicks, an eccentric but oddly wise character, is haunted in his daily life by
thoughts of King Charles I, whose historical murder seems symbolic of something
very wrong in the Universe. There are many other instances in this novel where
this darkness is explored in all sorts of ways. I think that Dickens goes a
little beyond a simple good verses evil comparison. Instead this perniciousness
seems to be embedded into the Universe in a way that is not completely able to
separate from good.

There seems to be an antidote to this darkness. Dickens was
fascinated by, and advocated for human kindness and empathy. When his characters
display these positive traits, it seems to be an effective counterpoint to the
darkness. At one point Martha Endell,
a young women who has fallen into disrepute, declines an offer of money in
exchange for providing assistance to David’s friend Emily, who has fallen into
terrible straits. Though in need of this help Martha declines it.

'I could not do what I have
promised, for money,' she replied. 'I could not take it, if I was starving. To
give me money would be to take away your trust, to take away the object that
you have given me, to take away the only certain thing that saves me from the
river.”

The above reference to the river seems to have double meaning as
Martha has alluded to suicide and death in the water. It also seems to have a
metaphorical meaning, as the part of the Thames that runs though industrial
London also seems to represent the maleficent force in he Universe.

This darkness inherent in creation is presented in a complex way
and appears throughout the novel in the characters, plot, as well as other
descriptive passages. I find that the
above passages to be very aesthetically effective descriptions of this wicked influence.
The book is filled with interesting explorations on this subject. This is just
one of many reasons that David Copperfielddeserves its reputation as an all time classic.

Friday, July 3, 2015

From
time to time, I will be blogging about books
relating to feminist themes. Some of my general thoughts on feminism and the
issue of violence directed at women are here.

Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse is
a controversial book. Controversy often goes hand in hand with Dworkin’s work.
A Radical Feminist (The term “Radical Feminist” is so often misunderstood. It
refers to a certain branch of feminism that adheres to a specific ideology.
Whether that ideology is really “radical” or not is, in my opinion, a fair
question and open to debate), Dworkin is admired by some and vilified by others.
It is worth noting that she has been strongly criticized by people who identify
as feminists.

This work lives up to Dworkin’s reputation for
proposing ideas that many people strongly disagree with. I chose to read this
book because I wanted to explore ideas on the edge of intellectual discourse
relating to feminism.

First, I want to clear up some common misconceptions
about this book that folks might find online and elswhere. It has been said by several sources that
Dworkin contends in this book that all heterosexual intercourse constitutes rape.
This is a fallacy; nothing in this book says or implies this. Furthermore, Dworkin
denied publicly that that was her intention here. Second, Dworkin has often
been accused if misandry. Though she makes very controversial statements about
men in general, in my opinion, nothing in this book is really hateful toward
men.

This is a curious and odd book for several reasons.
First, Dworkin’s primary contention is one of the more extreme that has been
proposed by any thinker who draws respect in intellectual circles. Second, the
structure of the book and how the arguments are developed are very unusual.

Dworkin’s primary argument is that heterosexual sex is
pernicious and is extremely damaging to the well-being of women. The author
argues that intercourse is always a vehicle for the oppression, exploitation,
and dehumanization of women. In fact, she seems to contend that intercourse and
men’s desire for it are the primary drivers of the oppression of women. She
makes little distinction regarding whether sex is within or outside of a
monogamous relationship or marriage. She disregards arguments that intercourse
can be a positive part of a respectful or healthy relationship.

She writes about intercourse,

“In it,
female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of
physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her
own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it
into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives
in—which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of
intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body— the basis
of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings—is entered
and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are—neutrally
speaking—violated. What is taken from her in that act is not recoverable, and
she spends her life—wanting, after all, to have something—pretending that
pleasure is in being reduced through intercourse to insignificance.”

Later she contends that it is a male expression of
hatred for women,

“But the
hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right.
Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the
form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power
without invention… “

The above are just examples. The author elaborates and
expands on similar arguments for many pages. She explores, society, culture and
history to support her contentions.

What might be more unusual about this book is its style
and structure. Roughly forty percent of this work is literary analysis. Several
works, including books by Leo Tolstoy, Gustave Flaubert, Brahm
Stoker, Isaac Bashevis Singer, James Baldwin and others are explored.
Dworkin does not attempt to use these works to support her contentions. Instead
she analyzes the various texts in terms of how they portray the dehumanizing
and oppressive effects of intercourse. As criticism, this book is insightful
and brings to light many useful and interesting insights contained in the works
that are analyzed. Nevertheless, it
seems odd to me to include this much literary criticism in a work such as this.

Dworkin’s style is almost poetic. In her introduction
to my edition of this book, Ariel Levy notes that she was heavily influenced by
Beat Poets, such as Allen Ginsberg. I think that this comparison is spot on.
The book is also heavily laced with profanity. Dworkin clearly hates sexual
intercourse and she seems to use vulgar terms in order to express her contempt
for the act.

As I suspect most people would, I strongly disagree
with Dworkin’s main conclusions. Like many human actions, intercourse is a complex
subject. Intercourse can be an enormously positive and psychologically healthy
act for both women and men.

With that, I think that Dworkin has struck upon some
truth. Intercourse is all too often used as a vehicle to dominate and oppress.
Obviously, rape falls into this category. Throughout history and into present
times, sex has been used to exploit and oppress women. Examples include
prostitution, domineering partners, mindless objectification, etc. Dworkin’s
arguments do point out how such oppressive trends have worked their way into
various aspects of our mainstream culture and how this dark side to sex has had
a negative impact on society.Furthermore, while I would not go nearly as far as Dworkin goes, I agree
that some of this tendency towards sexual dominance and sadism has ingrained itself
into our culture and psychology. Unfortunately, in my opinion she has turned
insight into dogma when it comes to the big picture. She seems to be utterly
contemptuous and sees little value in heterosexual intercourse in any context. Thus,
I find the author’s ultimate conclusions untenable.

This book is definitely not for everyone. Its extreme
positions as well as its profane language will be a nonstarter for many.However, to the extent that there is a dark
dimension to intercourse that runs throughout culture and history, this book
can be viewed as a controversial philosophic exploration of valid topics. If
one is interested in literary criticism revolving around this subject, this is
also a useful and even enlightening work. Finally, Dworkin was one of the main architects
of Radical Feminist Theory, and this is one of her major works. Anyone with an interest
in this subject would likely find this book valuable.

I found the book to be fascinating, however much I
disagree with Dworkin’s conclusions. I found her theorizing and prose style absorbing.
With that, this book is only recommended for adventurous readers with interest in
the relevant subjects.